Comments

It hurts to see Win McCormack pontential known this and keeping his mouth shut all these years.

For the current governor, Ted Kulongoski; any hit on his reputation--the BOWLPAC issue and this in a 3 month period:
Meanwhile, Kulongoski's personal PAC, Building Oregon With Leadership, gutter-balled. The PAC set out to fund Oregon Democrats and stock a war chest for ballot battles. Turns out it blew its sizable wad on glitzy boat tours and fine dining for high rollers. Whoops--Willy Week--10/6/2004HOW MANY MORE CAN HE TAKE????

One person quoted in the story said that when he found out, he was not going to go to the press with it. Which is a worthwhile question to consider, for each of us, to be in the situation of finding out after legal charges could not be brought, then what basis of power is there to confront the criminal -- is it only The Press?

The story also says the secret was known in 'the press' at The Oregonian and they did nothing. Nothing for us their customers, humankind or human decency anyway, but we cannot know what The Oregonian could do for itself to profit using the blackmail leverage of the secret, and 'control of' Goldschmidt.

That was how nudity pictures at the secret Abu Ghraib prison was described last spring, when reporters asked about America's military shame of chaining and torturing 90% innocent Iraqis. The CIA explained the sexual abuse was not punishment for crimes, but rather was blackmail leverage to force those people to be spies and inform on what their neighbors and friends were doing, back to their CIA 'controllers,' (or make up something).

Lars 'Liars' Larson is a broadcast example, in having callers who made illegal threats, (when President Clinton came to Springfield after the high school shootings, one Liars caller said "Clinton better not come down here," and Liars did not report to the Secret Service but instead put the caller on the air and goaded him -- Liars: "Why? What would happen? What would you do to him?" -- to coerce ratings by countenancing crime and civil unrest for his greed-gain in sensationalism), and binding the blackhearts to Liars' purposes by holding the secret of their name and address, (such as fax source or caller ID).

And, in the mass media broadly, there is keeping secret information which could indict and even convict Bush administration criminals, in order to curry or leverage favoritism or largesse from Republican corruption. (The Press, including The Oregonian, has received the photo (bottom of column) proving 9/11's Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and have never published or aired it for the public's information.)

In any case -- Goldschmidt, Liars' toadies, or Republican corruption -- whatever blackmail advantage The Press might profit in a kept secret is obviously lost if they reveal it.

So, outside of legal recourse, citizens knowing of a crime that they care to bring before justice should not think the mass media is going to shoulder such responsibility, or further the interest of the community's well-being.

"BlueOregon is a place for progressive Oregonians to gather 'round the water cooler and share news, commentary, and gossip."
This is obviously in the gossip category.

A post above refers to "someone in the story says when he found out..".
Found out what? Evidence that could be taken to child abuse authorities, or only rumor?

Teachers and others who see child abuse are required to report it. But that does not mean just suspicion. Allegation is not proof.

My sister's former inlaws included a family with a daughter so developmentally disabled that when she grew up she qualified for a "first jobs" program with a company which hires disabled people for sorting and other jobs. As a young child she was not very coordinated and often fell down and skinned her knees. A neighbor reported possible child abuse, but when the investigators saw records of her condition and medical treatment, they took no further action because the child was being well cared for, but like many kids had trouble walking and running.
What if someone had reported suspicions and could not back them up? Does everyone reading this assume the worst about everyone they know because of course everyone has a skeleton in their closet? Is that what we are supposed to believe?

Yes, I know there are those who love a juicy scandal, but I don't believe in rumor as sport. Accusation is not proof. Anyone who had proof of child abuse should have reported it to the authorities--but that would have required evidence.
And the way I read about this story originally, someone claimed someone else "should have heard that story at that party".
As a prosecutor's granddaughter, I doubt that is sufficient evidence to act upon.

I thought it was scandalous when the story first broke that the Governor was ambushed by reporters while leaving a military funeral. Imagine all the family and friends of the combat fatality. If the people who care about this story had been with those ambushing reporters, what would they have done?
Would they have said to those grieving at the funeral "you are really supposed care more about Neil Goldschmidt's deep dark secret"? What if a camera crew had filmed the people intruding on the griefstricken people attending the funeral? How many who saw that on TV would think the intrusion was as scandalous as anything Goldschmidt did?

Do you know for a fact that Willamette Week enhanced their reputation with that story? Didn't one of the WW founders publicly complain that was beneath what they had founded WW for?
Just what did that accomplish outside of yellow journalism?

There are real problems in this state--hunger, unemployment, civil rights. But if you want to gossip about a scandal, why say famous people are guilty of what they "should have known" about a public figure's deep dark secret from the 20th century?
What does that solve?

How is that different from "Vote for Goli Ameri because of what David Wu did in college"? Outside of the obvious--college students are adults, no criminal charges, etc. this sounds like garden variety smear. There ARE Oregonians who exercise their right to decide for themselves what they find offensive!

If you really want a scandal to talk about, try something from the 21st century. For instance:
Was that in the Oregonian today I read something about House Majority Leader W. Scott taking a lobbyist paid trip to Maui while opposing more funding for the ethics commission? Or is a current money scandal not as juicy as a former elected official's deep dark child abuse secret from the previous century?

May the reason for political secretkeeping be that most of us have skeletons we want hidden? They may or may not be as egregious as ongoing statutory rape, but may well suffice as political death stroke.

And if the knowledge is after the fact, and if we cannot be really sure if rumour represents reality, isn't it easy to swallow and turn away?

Hero worship is always a fault. It would not have taken revelation of sexcrime for a clear thinking observer to know that Goldschmidt was no saint or savior. Take a look at what he did with workers' comp [aided by the present gov]. How many lives have been ruined by our system of worker disposal? Victims don't get even a cup full of pencils to start them on a new career.

Goldschmidt's actions were disguting and illegal and ruined the life of a young girl. Everybody who knew about it (and I doubt it's limited to the people listed in the article) should be ashamed of themselves for keeping that secret.

This is a very small town and I find it incredibly hard to believe that a "rumor" like this was not discussed at some length and with some indication of evidence. What I find more likely is that people who knew decided that Goldschmidt was a political superstar and therefore should be let off the hook for his repugnant behavior, while the young girl was simply a young girl and she was, therefore, disposable and disposed of - an acceptable loss - one girl's life in exchange for a vibrant city.

It's a sick and sad comment on the value of women in society, and our collective willingness to allow a woman to be mentally and physically destroyed if the man who is doing the destroying is good enough at something else (be that politics or sports).

So what do we gain by dramatic exposure of shocking secrets when the statute of limitations has run? Well, how about a more complete picture of a public figure, an explanation for seemingly inexplicable behavior, and a chance to reevaluate our expectations of elected officials, our priorities, and ourselves.

Nevertheless, I think we need to take these issues one-step further. The explicitly named individuals, that actual knew or heard many whispers; of this unforgivable heinous crime of Neil Goldschmidt, did they "profit" and/or "accelerate their current positions in society" at the time of Goldschmidt statements of not running for Governor in the early 90’s and anytime before that. If so, we need to treat them as “persona non gratia” unequivocally, since this crime has destroyed an innocent child that is now a “burden to society”. For us too help these individuals now knowing this evil; maybe this is why the public has a distain for politics, politicians and the inner-circles of people with power. Furthermore, we have to hold our Democrat elected officials, past and present; to the same standards as too the other side—if we do not then we are nothing more than screaming little hypercritics and not should not BITCH about the kickbacks or antics of the other side. Acts of criminal behavior name it: assault, rape, forgery of checks and documents, bribery, hit and run, sexual misconduct; are all crimes and should not be treated and reacted so lightly no matter if these acts where from yesterday or yesteryear.

I personally know four people who were sexually molested as young teens by people they trusted - a principle, a teacher, a father, and a grandfather. Their lives have been dramatically impacted by what happened to them. That anyone could allow Goldschmidt to continue to move forward in public life is a disgrace.

Additionally, the broad list of the Democrats and media people who knew, as well as the corruption mentioned above in the Republican party, demonstrates quite clearly why this country is in the mess it is in. It shouldn't just be everyday citizens who believe in ethics. We need to demand ethical behavior from our leaders and hold them accountable when they let us down, even if it's difficult and even if it costs us personally. Until these people are held to account, they will continue to abuse the public trust. But when people behave this way and their feet are held to the fire, some will actually realize what they've done and change their ways.

we know that in the mid-'80s two then-WW reporters heard specific allegations about G's sexual appetites. presumably, they told the editor what they knew. at some point, for some reason, WW refused to go with the story. the question is, why didn't they. WW's story this week about who knew somehow, not surprisingly perhaps, failed to mention themselves. hard to know what to make of their holier-than-thou attitude about this, especially when they don't explain their own actions.

Yes I know statutory rape is evil. It should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That requires evidence and the workings of the criminal justice system.

But I think rumormongering is also bad.

So this is a challenge to those who say things like
"holding people to high standards" or this wonderfully worded post excerpt:
"The explicitly named individuals, that actual knew or heard many whispers; of this unforgivable heinous crime of Neil Goldschmidt, did they "profit" and/or "accelerate their current positions in society" at the time of Goldschmidt statements of not running for Governor in the early 90’s and anytime before that. "

My question to those of you posting is this: what you yourself would do if you "heard many whispers" about someone you had supported politically? What concrete steps would you take?
Would you tell a reporter or someone in criminal justice or child protection that you had "heard many whispers" about a famous person? Would you go to another friend from a campaign and say "This is what I have heard--what have you heard?". Or would you stay silent?
The same thing applies to someone you know who you suspect is a victim of spouse abuse. Do you provide them information about shelters and other help available, or do you do something public?

And what about the parents of the child involved? Did they trust Goldschmidt? If they did, is that the fault of political activists who "heard many whispers". Or is blaming the parents less fun than saying political figures should have known? What if you were a campaign manager and someone started spreading rumors about you or your candidate?
Would you say the rumors must be true?

I ask this as someone who has heard rumors in the past about political figures--some were true, some were not. Is it OK to smear someone if the rumor turns out not to be true? Would your actions hurt any innocent people?

Or are you all just talking theory because you don't know what you would do if confronted by something like rumors at a party?

You should have spread around a few more dollars and favors to avoid being victimized by rumor mongering.

Since you didn't and the cat is out of the bag, I suggest you come clean with a total detailed confession. Tell the whole story of who knew and what favors you did pull. Everything. You are the only one who knows everything. Keeping silent now serves only to continue the scandal and further the disgusting path you chose.
Quit hiding.

It's one thing to hear whispers. The story is that these people KNEW. And they all continued to support him politically. That's why it's outrageous. I think most of us if we heard whispers and rumors might shun the person, and if the rumors seemed out of character and we new the person well enough we would likely approach the person with questions and then decide whether to support or shun the person. But to KNOW and do nothing, to KNOW and continue to advance someone in public life, that is inexcusable.

The biblical concept of "shunning" might have been useful for people with knowledge but no "proof".

The idea is that people trying to live moral lives should not enable immoral acts by continuing to associate with and enable the abuser.

I had an old room mate that often worked overseas and would come back and brag about his little sexual pecadillos. When he went to Thailand and "rented" a young sex worker for a couple of weeks, he came back and told us the "funny" story about how he wound up messing around outside of even her temporary rules and gave her a sexually transmitted desease. That made me uneasey but I didn't hit my gag reflex until he came back with the story about "marrying" a 13 year old african girl, and dumping her when his contract was over, because "That's how they do it over there".

So, someone wants a "totally detailed confession" from me.
Here it is. I was a substitute teacher for 15 years.
I take the welfare of young people seriously, and also believe rumors (and news reports without hard evidence) are not fact.

I was once pulled out of a high school classroom and told to make sure a certain girl was seated at the opposite side of a classroom and had no contact with a certain boy because there had been reports of assault or abuse (years ago, don't remember the details).
I once got called out of a classroom and told they were notifying teachers in person before making an announcement over the PA system so teachers could be somewhat prepared for the reaction--a student from that middle school had been discovered dead.
I would like to know how all the adults in this girl's life failed her--did Neil cast a magic spell on all those who knew her in school, in the neighborhood, etc.?

Last night and this morning on the news there was a story "...the abuse of this girl came to light when she spoke to a school administrator and steps were taken to arrest this man". Why didn't that happen in this case?
Did no one in this girl's school notice anything was going on? Did she confide in no friends or adults?
Was she a member of any youth group or other organization?
Or is that too serious a question for people who love a good sex and power scandal?
Becky says "The story is that these people knew!".
Becky, how do you know that? Because it was in a publication? What is the proof?

I really am a prosecutor's granddaughter. I do care about evidence that could stand up in court, not just published reports.
Am I a "supporter of Neil" because I think it was Neil's responsibility not to run for office with a deep dark secret, and the people who actually knew the girls name had a responsibility to make sure no harm came to her?

I have "shunned" people whose behavior I didn't approve of--not only someone who I once helped elect and who cheated on his wife who divorced him. Also those who engaged in other misdeeds less juicy because they were about money or campaign tactics.A friend of mine helped elect a legislator who then made very crude remarks about certain of his constituents. And she made sure he was not re-elected!

I will certainly shun anyone who tries to tell me that no issue--unemployment, hunger, health care, budget, veterans, or the war in Iraq is as important as who knew Neil's deep dark secret when.

If someone has evidence that Neil was seen giving money to this girl or her family, or someone working in a bank noticed he wrote checks to this person for large amounts suspiciously often, that is proof.
Sorry, I don't buy the argument that "the story is that people knew and kept supporting him".

How many of you on this blog remember the Fadeley- Goldschmidt primary for Gov.? Do you remember what happened to Fadeley and why Fadeley left the Court? (cancer was the excuse, not the reason). Should Fadeley have won that Gov. nomination although he was known for bullying and abusive remarks?
Are you saying that if you were of voting age in 1986 you would have voted for Norma to be the first woman Governor? Why?

We all deal with the information we have at the time, and decide for ourselves what our standard of evidence is.

I have yet to see evidence that people "knew" as in had proof.
And no one has answered my earlier question. If there is someone you knew/ admired and a juicy rumor circulated about this person, would you believe the rumor at face value or would you try to investigate?

I would investigate. And from what I know of the story, people did investigate, and ask around, and compare notes, and then they all dropped the issue because Goldschmidt was the most powerful man in that state and they wanted a political future or they wanted him to have a political future.

This is not a "juicy story" in the harmless gossip delight-in-other-people's-pain sense. This isn't making out at the office Christmas party - that's a juicy story. This is unacceptable behavior that should have been prosecuted to begin with but wasn't.

(And LT, drop the "prosecutor's granddaughter" bit - whatever your relatives do for a living doesn't buy you any credibility).

Am I a "supporter of Neil" because I think it was Neil's responsibility not to run for office with a deep dark secret, and the people who actually knew the girls name had a responsibility to make sure no harm came to her?

So LT, did you vote for Gov. Roberts?
She was one of the strongest Democrats at the time
to challenge any and all Republican opponents. There was no other scandal of heinous proportions that was in the Governor's Office, in the media or on the horizon; for the Democratic Party to approach Barbara Roberts to step up to run for Governor. Who was in the inner circle of power back then to solicit Mrs. Roberts to run for the office and knew why Mr. Goldschmidt was not running? Did Gov. Roberts ever got the real reason for Gov. Goldschmidt or just let the issue vanish off the radar?
The individuals of knowledge of this issue, should
have taken responsibility of it--but why not?
Possible the fear of these new and emerging individuals could have been implicated in the helping to sooth over/cover up the destructive past of the Governor.
This event truly makes me the believer of the statement of the many does out weigh the one. The one is the former Governor. The many are the victim herself and the individuals that could not speak out because of the power circles that Gov. Goldschmidt had. For those that spread this crime and cover up have no reverence or honor for their fellow Man.

This may come as a shock, but no one I knew in 1990 knew why Goldschmidt didn't run. Suspicion was his marriage breaking up. To put it in blunt terms, just like most Americans could not imagine on Labor Day 2001 that planes would be flown into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, no one could imagine that Neil Goldschmidt or any other politician could be guilty of a sex crime.

I remember something about his telling the Sec. of State (next in the line of succession) that he wasn't running for re-election.
The Sec. of State had only days after being told that to decide whether to run for Gov.
I was at the announcement in the capitol as were many of my friends from the state central committee. It was a muted ceremony where one friend had typed FOR GOVERNOR on a piece of paper and taped that over a Roberts for Sec. of State button. I recall Frank Roberts got a kick out of that.

But with regard to this quote:

So LT, did you vote for Gov. Roberts?
She was one of the strongest Democrats at the time
to challenge any and all Republican opponents. There was no other scandal of heinous proportions that was in the Governor's Office, in the media or on the horizon; for the Democratic Party to approach Barbara Roberts to step up to run for Governor. Who was in the inner circle of power back then to solicit Mrs. Roberts to run for the office and knew why Mr. Goldschmidt was not running? Did Gov. Roberts ever got the real reason for Gov. Goldschmidt or just let the issue vanish off the radar?
The individuals of knowledge of this issue, should
have taken responsibility of it--but why not?
<<
As a matter of fact, I did not take sides in the Gov. campaign (2 strong candidates) until Frohnmayer did that stupid brick thru the plate glass window ad.
Republicans also claimed (as they did with Kerry's voting record in 2004 and Max Cleland's in 2002) that she had said and voted in ways the facts did not back up.

On what do you base the idea that "the Democratic Party approached Mrs. Roberts?
Are you aware that besides her job as Sec. of State she was concerned about her husband's health, and concerned about her kids as any mother would be?
I think the only "inner circle" persons involved in Sec. of State Roberts decision to run was her husband the St. Senator and the Gov. who told her he was not going to run. The rest of us were in shock--as I recall, Goldschmidt had already started fundraising for re-election before deciding not to run.

But if you are such a cynic that you believe everything is done by a political machine and there are no individual decisions, there is nothing I can do to change your mind.

As I recall, Win McCormack and Barbara Roberts had been delegates to the 1984 Democratic National Convention but for opposing candidates (McCormack for the primary winner, Roberts for the primary loser). Don't ever let it enter your mind that in the mid-1980s the Democrats were as united as they were this summer and fall--far from it. There were multiple wings of the party and those from one wing seldom socialized with another--mroe likely called those from another wing "not real Democrats".
And ditch the idea of "elites"--one reason Roberts got elected Gov. is that people could relate to the idea that a single monther who raised kids (one of them autistic) on a bookkeepers salary (she didn't marry Frank Roberts until after she had become involved in politics)must have a clue about their lives and the value of a dollar.

It is hard to believe that had the dirty secret been known anyone with a conscience would have supported him.
It is not the fault of any former / current office holders that the Oregonian or WW knew more than they let on.

And don't forget that the WW story says no individual is responsibile for the fact that a dirty secret from the late 1970s (not found by the background checks to work in the Carter Administration) was not known publicly in the mid-1980s. Look at the number of people who only heard word of mouth and didn't believe it. I repeat my question: if you hear a rumor about someone you know, do you automatically credit the rumor and tell it to the most powerful people you know in news or law enforcement? Look at how long Packwood kept his seat in the US Senate.

Now if it was reported to the WW or Oregonian newsroom and they sat on the story, that is not the fault of politicians.
Unless you are a conspiracy theorist.

I would look at the source(s) and do my own fact-finding adventure; and yes if the details were unassailable; I would then tell the media as a whole and not try to play the media outlets off each other.

As well, I was not around in 1990 in Oregon; I was helping to be elected, the first woman Democrat Governor in Texas, Dorothy Ann Richards.

However, for a voter, the opinion statement of yours on the “Suspicion was his marriage breaking up”; for not running for an easy second term, is shaky at best. If that was the case, why has Sen. Kennedy stayed in the Senate...chronic drunkenness, womanizing; and potential murder? He should have fallen from grace over three decades ago, but for the web of power and influence that the Kennedy’s have made (and the assassinations of his two brothers), would not allow him to go down with out taken the establishment down with him. Some similar parallelisms there, some parts of the web here in Oregon; would not let Goldschmidt’s crime take down him or the web that he made.

For Sen. Packwood, he had honor to step down when the crimes that were laid out in front of the country were irrefutable by the media, for that part of his career I respect and for not disgracing the state anymore than what had been. For the other things that he did for the state of Oregon—the crimes against his fellow co-workers makes that of his legacy and work at best: NETURAL TO AWFUL.
Yes, like I stated before, those potential dozens of woman and others that were victimized by him, where unable to uncut this web of power and influence that he had.

Thank you Aaron for admitting you were not here in 1990. I very much admire Ann Richards, but am confused with your comment about Ted Kennedy's chronic drunkeness. As I understand it, one powerful aspect of the Ann Richards story is that she got elected not only in spite of being a woman but in spite of being a recovering alcoholic.

I always thought incumbents lost for one of 2 reasons:
1) The incumbent had become unpopular, done controversial things, really turned off swing voters.
2) The challenger out-campaigned the incumbent. I'm afraid that is why Richards was defeated and why we are stuck with the president we have today.

For any of you who were not around in the 1980s or early 1990s, I strongly suggest reading the LONG Vera Katz cover story on the Sunday Oregonian (early edition has some great front page pictures) to get an idea about what Oregon politics was like back then. 1986 is so far back in time that babies born that year were old enough to vote in 2004.
There was considerably more intelligent discussion of issues back then than often happens now. There were many more strong personalities. And many inspiring politicians,esp. women.

Frank Roberts, the patriarch of Oregon Democratic politics, was still alive back then. Gov. Roberts would have had a tough time anyway (passage of Measure 5, House going Republican with Larry Campbell as Speaker) with Frank's death during her term as Governor. But his death was a factor in her decision not to seek re-election (along with the possibility of a primary challenge and I suspect also that no human being has an infinte amount of stamina).

In that article you will see mention of Mary Wendy Roberts and Betty Roberts. The first was a state legislator and State Labor Comm. She was Frank's daughter by his first marriage. Betty was Frank's second wife. When they divorced, she kept his name. She was a state legislator, State Supreme Court Justice, and if my memory is correct she was the replacement candidate for US Senate the year Wayne Morse died. And did she run for Gov. in 1974?

I looked it up and Aaron is correct to mention of then Sec. of State Roberts,
"She was one of the strongest Democrats at the time to challenge any and all Republican opponents." Except that only 2 of those Republican names are known today. Dave Frohnmayer, who was excellent AG for a very long time before running for Gov. is now
U of O President. The only other recognizable name would now be referred to as incoming state rep. John Limm.

In that article you will see mention of Rick Bauman. In 1986 after getting the Senate nomination, Jim Weaver dropped out of the US Senate election due to financial ethics problems. A friend of mine worked on that campaign. At the replacement convention, the 2 strongest candidates were Ed Fadeley and Rick Bauman. As someone said to me in the room that day, he knew Bauman would win--"Rick called every voting delegate in this room asking for their vote, and at some point in his life Ed has alienated everyone in this room".

In 1990 many of us put most of our concentration on what turned out to be a winning campaign to replace Cong. Denny Smith who we had been trying to get rid of for 10 years. He was replaced by Mike Kopetski who later retired undefeated.

I mention all this because Democratic politics back then was very vibrant. It was not (like many have seen it in recent years) that "the Democratic establishment" controls things. Lemme tell ya! There was a resolution in the 1985 Eugene meeting of the State Central Comm. where the sponsors didn't like something the legislature was doing. They passed what they said was "what real Democrats believe"--but the Speaker, Sen. President and other legislators opposed the resolution. It only passed by 25-19. Which side of that debate was the "establishment"? I can tell you that those of us who voted no (with the legislators, in other words) were called the Infamous 19 and told we were "not real Democrats".

Neil Goldschmidt was but one of many outsized personalities involved in getting things accomplished. Ed Fadeley was another. They ran against each other for the 1986 Gov. nomination, and Ed was the kinda guy who would have used any rumors about Neil's personal life. I say that based on statements he made like "If Neil were elected he would..." although Neil had never said any such thing.

As important: Back when the State Democratic Office was in Salem there was considerable strength in the non-Portland Democratic Party (coincidence? you decide) and during the 1980s Democrats controlled the legislature. That didn't mean that Speaker Vera Katz always supported Gov. Goldschmidt.

It appears that Bernie Guisto and Win McCormack and the "father of the Pearl District" who arranged for the go-between to arrange payments or whatever have a lot to answer for---although it would have been nice if the Carter background check had caught Neil's dark secret before he went to DC. Or better yet, if someone who knew "Susan" had spotted what was going on before the statute of limitations ran out.

Once I knew a very outspoken woman from the midwest who was talking about a co-worker who had been suspended for allegations of sexual indescretion with a student. Her response was something I think many would agree with. "Of course he is innocent until proven guilty, but if he is guilty I would like to take a paper cutter and remove the offending organ myself".

But the first half of that statement is as important as the second.

2 things bother me about this story of who knew:

1) There seems to be a presumption that all sorts of (mostly Portland) public figures "should have known" (in the case of Gov. Roberts, it does sound like a case of whether to believe hearsay evidence about a comment at a party).

2)There are 36 counties in Oregon, and only 3 of those are in the Portland area. Who in this story outside of St. Sen. Walker is not from the Portland area?

Don't try and tell those Democrats who never lived in Portland that they should have known stuff going on among Portland Democrats. There are active Democrats from the other 33 or so counties who are getting tired of Portland setting the agenda on everything and expecting the rest of the state to follow their lead.

Anne, you are missing the point. Neil is scum.
But I don't think everyone who ever knew Neil knew his deep dark secret.

Let's say for the point of argument that Bernie Guisto, Win McCormack, and some of Neil's close friends knew the secret and didn't tell. If they knew the secret and didn't tell before the statute of limitations ran out, are they guilty of being accessory to a crime? What is the role of that girl's parents--or doesn't that matter because they aren't public figures, just the real "should have known" folks?

My point is that there are Democratic activists, candidates, members of State/ District/ County Central committees who have never met Neil Goldschmidt, Bernie Guisto, Win McCormack.

Anne, are you a believer in guilt by association?

What bothers me is the attitude that every Democrat in the state "should have known" Neil had a deep dark secret.
I think the fault for this lies in Neil Goldschmidt, the failed Carter background check, the people who arranged payments between Neil and the girl, and the girl's parents. I refuse to hold let's say 10 names of randomly selected Democratic activists responsible because someone on a blog says they "should have known". Where is the proof? Were you at a party where you heard a public figure admit to knowing Neil's secret and not doing anything about it? Are you as suspicious of everyone or just on this one story?

I don't put much faith in hearsay evidence. I have known legislators who claim they never knew public information like the fact that controversial bills had hearings and work sessions without publicity. If politicians don't know such public information, why would they know the dark secrets of a famous person's private life? Or do you assume to know what strangers are thinking and doing?

Why does that make me "hell bent on defending Neil"? Or are you saying that if there is ever a scandal about any public figure every person who ever met that public figure is guilty of a coverup?

LT wrote, What is the role of that girl's parents--or doesn't that matter because they aren't public figures, just the real "should have known" folks?

Actually, if I remember the original WW story, her mother at least was some sort of public figure - unnamed, of course, but there was some sort of reference to her being on Mayor Goldschmidt's staff. Also, that at a later date she joined the American embassy staff in Italy.

I got around to reading the story in Willamette Week last night. When I finished it, I thought: This is why I can't stand people sometimes. I've had a day to think it over and I think: This is why I can't stand people sometimes. That deep, pack animal thing that goes on with'em. Kick the weak. Brown-nose the powerful. That is what nearly every powerful person in town did. There's a little doubt in my mind that just about all of'em knew. But, they were not about to jeopardize their own places at the trough to do the right thing. 'Susan' never stood a chance of obtaining any justice if she'd relied on the movers and shakers of Portland to help her out.

Remembering what was happening and what was at stake at the time Goldschmidt's offense became known by some reveals the essence of this cover up.

Who at the time wanted Neil and the web he was leading to topple. Such grand progress was underway.

All these fine people were doing fine things for Oregon. Emerging careers and long term policies were would have been at risk, undermined, tabled or halted.

I can well imagine the thoughts of many who knew asking themselves,
"what could really be gained by revealing this travesty?"
"It's too late to stop the assault?"
"Isn't it better to make the most out of an ugly situation?"
"This is a critical time for Oregon and many things depend on forward movement."
"Why should I be the one to come forward?
"I'll be ruined for destroying the marvelous career of an adorned leader"
"Yes it is better for everyone and Oregon that this be left silenced."
"I'm doing the right thing"
"No one will ever find out that I knew"

All of this would have been somewhat routine or acceptable had the offense not been so sickening.

Having just experienced the childhood of my wonderful daughter and many other fantastic young ladies involved in her activities and friendships throughout the last 18 years the severity of Neil Goldschmidt's CRIME screams for nothing but total outrage.
Outrage and consequences for Neil and everyone who provided cover.

I think people are confusing doing well with doing good. Most of the very ambitious people who aided the coverup have done very well for themselves. 'Friends of Neil' are very successful, often with direct ties between their financial success and Goldschmidt himself. Even Goldschmidt's rabbi has benefitted financially through his wife, a real estate agent who has handled deals for the pol and his friends. I am not saying that good wasn't done. But, to these very ambitious folks, it was secondary. Their main goal was doing well for themselves. Neil Goldschmidt is extremely wealthy because of his mesh of connections between business and government. 'Friends of Neil' have not done as well in most cases, but they are better off than they would be without the friendship. The success they have now stems from playing along decades ago. Their motivation for keeping mum was their ambition.

Aaron says
"""" what about all the "REPUBLICANS" knowing about this crime"""""

All?

I'm not saying there were none but if there were any Republicans who knew I have yet to read or hear so.

Let alone "all" the Republicans.

This issue should be beyond party affiliation.
However, many democrat politicians and movers and shakers road the coat tails of NG. But even that fact does not make this a party problem.
The crime just happened to fall on that alignment.

None the less, complete and true confession by a few participants would be might cleansing.

To the U.S. Congress:

Protect our seniors and END the government's ability to garnish Social Security benefits.

first name*

last name*

Email address*

zip code*

Please leave this field blank:

Note: This petition is sponsored by Blue Oregon Action, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator Jeff Merkley, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator Ron Wyden, AFL-CIO, American Federation of Teachers, Campaign for America's Future, People For the American Way, RootsAction, Social Security Works, and The Nation. By signing, you may receive emails from these sponsors updating you on the progress of this campaign and other important projects. (You may, of course, unsubscribe at any time.) Learn more.